Edward Diener wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: >> In discussions about being able to specify a function to check the >> validity of path element names, a simple function pointer has been >> used: >> >> typedef bool (*name_check)( const std::string & name ); >> >> Alternately, boost::function could be used. [...]
I prefer that we have a good understanding of the semantics first, which I admit I do not. >> Comments? > > I disagree. You have a magnificent implementation in boost::function, > which can be bound to many different callback types, and yet you > don't want to use it simply to reduce a dependency. [...] The problem is that merely including <boost/function.hpp> may render the filesystem library unusable on some compilers, even if alternative name checkers are never used. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
